Maybe some of you have seen on the news the idea of making a huge highway from Mexico to Canada. And, as you probably know, borders aren't being improved. I have recently seen on more than one political program that the US is taking steps toward making a North American Union. Much like the Europeans made the European Union. They did it really slowly. They established a shadow government, let borders fade away, and then suddenly everything fell together, the Euro was born, and the US Dollar was beaten.
Supposedly, if we were united with Mexico and Canada, Mexicans could unload our imports from China faster and incredibly cheaper. Also, We could ship things around North America faster and cheaper. Plus, our combined currency would destroy the Euro. Is this why borders are being left alone? Is this why the highway is being planned?
Another strange thing: In one of Orwell's old books, he predicted that in the future there will be only three world superpowers, all going by fantastic nicknames. The scary part: The European Union exists, Red China is growing, North American Union...

Do you think we will become one superpower?? Search 'North American Union' on Youtube.com, watch some of the videos(really interesting!) Then please give your thoughts.

I've proposed that it's really going to be difficult to solve illegal immigration issues with our neighbors via conventional means. The Southwestern part of the US and Northern Mexico shared real estate at one time. Actually it was a Mexican territory first before Sam Houston came on the scene to put a halt to Santa Ana. We have had continuous shared cultures and peoples for approximately two hundred years plus going back to the first Caucasians that explored the territory. Economics solutions and using combined resources is one possibility. I'll check the "Youtube" when I get time. Thanks.



Bobby

Gallivant

You are correct in that a similar process that could eventually lead to an EU model is in the works here in North America ;and yes it is incremental in design . It is not a foregone conclusion that it will happen . I have no issue with bilateral and regional trade agreements but I will stubbornly oppose processes that weaken or eliminate national sovereignty .

The blueprint for this effort can be found here : "Building a North American Community" published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

Since then the leaders of Mexico ,the USA ,and Canada have met in a series of negotiations under a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" plan .

SPP Home (http://www.spp.gov/)

It is argued that this is why President Bush has consistently gone against his own party on issues like border security and the status of illegal aliens.

Currently the SPP is nothing more than an economic and post 9-11 security arrangement .So long as it remains as such I do not oppose it.But I watch developments with a wary eye. If it moves as you suggest towards an EU model I will oppose it.

North American Trade Union has not been approved by congress or the house, Bush has signed a agreement without congressional approval.

Now, part of he NATU is a super highway from mexico to canada through the heart land of america, for truck traffic.

The borders would be wide open, to alleged terrorists.

The President can sign treaties and agreements all he wants to . Treaties are not ratified until the Senate ratifies them . There is a difference between treaties and agreements but as this essay points out ;the lines have been blurred since the mid- 20th century .

US Constitution Annotated - International Agreements Without Senate Approval (http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/22-international-agreements-by-authorization.html)

Most of the rest of the world considers trade agreements the equivalent of treaties but the US system does not. Congressional -Executive Agreements(CEAs )and executive agreements need only majority votes for passage. Treaties require 2/3 majority of the Senate.

There are constitutional scholars who claim these agreements are un-constitutional . But SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.

Regarding a North American Union, I have to ask, what's in it for us, the USA? We take on the poverty and crime of Mexico, and the socialist medical infrastructure of Canada, but what do we get in return? Mexicans get jobs, an infusion of capital, a crackdown on crime, all thanks to the USA. Canada gets the American doctors it so desperately lacks. We get an increase in poverty, medical costs, crime, and government spending to deal with these problems. What do we get in return for this? What's in it for us?

I think it's a bad idea. I've said so before, and nothing I have heard since makes me change my mind.

Elliot

Hello galivant:

Hmph...

I think there's a lot in it for us. We'll have a large pool of willing workers. That should REDUCE crime here, because we have a lot MORE than Mexico does. We'll be able to buy beach front property. All our draft dodgers from times earlier would be within our reach. Health care would be improved (even if that pisses off the rich). We can all start saying ayyy. Our borders would be the oceans, and much easier to guard.

I don't know. I don't think it's a bad idea as long as we make Canada and Mexico our 51st and 52nd state.

excon

Regarding a North American Union, I have to ask, what's in it for us, the USA? We take on the poverty and crime of Mexico, and the socialist medical infrastructure of Canada, but what do we get in return? Mexicans get jobs, an infusion of capital, a crackdown on crime, all thanks to the USA. Canada gets the American doctors it so desperately lacks. We get an increase in poverty, medical costs, crime, and government spending to deal with these problems. What do we get in return for this? What's in it for us?

I think it's a bad idea. I've said so before, and nothing I have heard since makes me change my mind.

Elliot

Our imports from China can be bigger and go right to Mexico(instead of squeezing through the Panama Canal and going to Florida). Plus, we will have the Mexicans doing labor for us for almost no money. So, pretty much what the Mexicans will do for us, is be slaves.

I guess the name of our new country will be "Camero"... :D

I guess the name of our new country will be "Camero"...:D

Thank you ,nicespringgirl, for the in depth response to my information. LOL

The European Union is NOT one country. It is a group of countries w/ the same currency and some trade agreements. France is still France, etc. If this NAU does go forward we won't be throwing the constitution out the window and probably won't be changing it in any way. People need to know what they're talking about before crying wolf. There will not be one "North American Nation" when/if this thing goes through. There are reasons that this is a bad idea but that's not one of them.

P.S. I'd be interested in reading more official government document on the issue.

All our draft dodgers from times earlier would be within our reach.
As a vet, I'd like to see the dodgers brought to justice. I'm not going case by case and saying all were concientous objecters, because many didn't want to even do non-combat work to support our efforts.

But at the same time I don't think they should be persecuted anymore for their actions by leaving when they feared to serve, while ill-imm's can simply be absorbed as low wage workers without reprisal. Are we being fair? I don't think so.

On the other aspect of this post, I admit that I have no personal experience with the EEU but from what I've heard, the undertones, many of the countries that are a part of it, aren't as happy as they had hoped. They just never saw the disadvantages until it was too late. A lot of us were concerned when NAFTA was approved and more jobs are leaving, not less.

Building a big fat highway doesn't mean prosperity for all. Commerce and tourism will florish. But so will black-market smuggling and car theft, IMO. Anytime something good happens, crime will follow. If anything, maybe the bottle neck will allow closer scrutiny.

If this NAU does go forward we won't be throwing the constitution out the window and probably won't be changing it in any way.

I don't know about that . Already SCOTUS cites international law in constitutional decision. There are many who believe that UN decisions supersede our laws

A North American Union would not create a new single country. This is about business, and business is highly related to border security these days. There is plenty of business back and forth across the CAN/USA/MEX borders so it makes sense to have common economic/border laws. Yes, this is happening behind closed doors, but there are two options: (1) A simultaneous triple-coup to overthrow the Canadian, US, and Mexican governments and replace them all with a single NAU dictatorship to enable common economics, or (2) all three respective governments will have a chance to vote up or down on a final joint proposal in a slow, arduous process. I'd say the latter is more likely.

One way of looking at the proposal would be to look at the European Union and ask, “Has it been good or bad for the people in those countries?” On the one side it has grown one of the largest and most successful economies in the world. It has promoted Democracy through interdependence, integration, and free trade.

Interestingly, it is just this week a trial basis for Mexican trucking throughout the US has begun. Canada has been allowed to do this for sometime.

One step closer to A New World Order?

It's been my experience that neither the Canadian's, as a whole, nor the Mexican's have an overall high opinion of US policies. But, all three would be in favor of the benefits that would be derived from the collaboration, I'm thinking the US would bear the greater burden.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401623.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

The European Union is NOT one country. It is a group of countries w/ the same currency and some trade agreements. France is still France, etc. If this NAU does go forward we won't be throwing the constitution out the window and probably won't be changing it in any way. People need to know what they're talking about before crying wolf. There will not be one "North American Nation" when/if this thing goes through. There are reasons that this is a bad idea but that's not one of them.

P.S. I'd be interested in reading more official government document on the issue.
I know the European Union is not one country. I also didn't mean the North American Union will become one country, but a supranational union ( I think I did write country though in the last sentence on accident, but fixed it).

Regarding a North American Union, I have to ask, what's in it for us, the USA? We take on the poverty and crime of Mexico, and the socialist medical infrastructure of Canada, but what do we get in return? Mexicans get jobs, an infusion of capital, a crackdown on crime, all thanks to the USA. Canada gets the American doctors it so desperately lacks. We get an increase in poverty, medical costs, crime, and government spending to deal with these problems. What do we get in return for this? What's in it for us?

I think it's a bad idea. I've said so before, and nothing I have heard since makes me change my mind.

Elliot

What's in it for the US is easier trade, in both direction. It would make it easier for the US to buy low cost goods made in Mexico and would make it easier to sell goods to Canada, one of it's biggest trading partners. Trade (in both directions added together) between the US and Canada is estimated at nearly $2 Billion per day.

As mentionned by a few people it wouldn't actually make North America one country it would just mean easier trade and maybe in the future one currency.

Do you think that the US will sell out it's currency so easily? I mean the Euro is beating us by only about 30 cents right? The English didn't sell out to the Euro(maybe they should have, but they didn't). I guess only time can tell.

Oh I meant in a generation or 2 of this actually happens (it hasn't yet) and gets generally accepted, but I don't know, maybe it will never happen.

Do you think that the US will sell out it's currency so easily? I mean the Euro is beating us by only about 30 cents right? The English didn't sell out to the Euro(maybe they should have, but they didn't). I guess only time can tell.


The English pound is currently about 2 to 1 over the American dollar. They really weren't stressed to join, so they didn't. But look at the success of the countries that raised their economy by joining in the Euro. With exception of Germany and perhaps one or two others (that temporary loss eventually proved a gain), all others gained. And now look at the current Euro that is worth approx 30 cents more. OK. Now back to the North American Union possibility. Take a look at Canada! Their currency is darn near equal to ours. It's not like we are trying to carry two countries. It would be just Mexico on the lower end similar to what the Italian Lear was before Italy joined the Euro. However to Mexico's benefit they have as much, if not more resources to capitalize on than both Canada or the US.



Bobby

I heard Mexican trucks that started rolling across the highways of the United States, I believe the 6th of this month, have already been shut down due to unsafe conditions, which doesn't surprise me, since I also heard that the Mexican trucks have a hole cut in the floor for use as a restroom for the drivers to save toilet time at United States rest stop facilities, a stinky time saving situation; and Mexican drivers don't sit and eat at U.S. truck stops, but bag their food off salad bars for the three-four drivers per truck to eat in the trucks, to save time eating. Personally, I feel that is too much time saving.

Hello Martha:

Well I heard the A in your name stands for bigoted a$$.

excon

I heard Mexican trucks that started rolling across the highways of the United States, I believe the 6th of this month, have already been shut down due to unsafe conditions, which doesn't surprise me, since I also heard that the Mexican trucks have a hole cut in the floor for use as a restroom for the drivers to save toilet time at United States rest stop facilities, a stinky time saving situation; and Mexican drivers don't sit and eat at U.S. truck stops, but bag their food off salad bars for the three-four drivers per truck to eat in the trucks, to save time eating. Personally, I feel that is too much time saving.
A hole in the floor for the restroom! I thought of something like that when I was a little kid. I never imagined that it would become such a practical time saver for the U.S. Also, now people won't fall asleep on the road because they'll get to play the dodging game.

HAAAA!! Dodging the crap right? I wonder if her info is even true, if Mexicans do that for real.

excon:

Not bigoted at all. Saddened because Mexicans are forced into a position where that kind of lifestyle is their only option. If the North American Union goes through, it could be the only option for the Americans and Canadians as well, as large corporations consolidate their markets without any concern for the people.

gallivant_fellow:

Not practical. Tyranny.

nilbog:

Reported by a mechanic, according to some truckers.

gallivant_fellow:

Not practical. Tyranny.
It was a joke, gosh! And also, tyranny is an abuse of power. Pooping in the road may me gross, but I have no idea how it could be tyrannical.

excon:

Not bigoted at all. Saddened because Mexicans are forced into a position where that kind of lifestyle is their only option. If the North American Union goes through, it could be the only option for the Americans and Canadians as well, as large corporations consolidate their markets without any concern for the people.
Because Canadians and Mexicans aren't Americans, right?

No they are not, as the term is used by many of the US citizens, the term "american" is keyed to mean those of the US.

This is common usage and if you did not know it, now you do.

No they are not, as the term is used by many of the US citizens, the term "american" is keyed to mean those of the US.

This is commom usage and if you did not know it, now you do.
Yes they are American! I know it's keyed to mean that here in the U.S. but that doesn't change the meaning. They are absolutely American. I know American usually refers to a U.S. citizen, and was just busting some balls, but saying that Mexicans and Canadians are not Americans is completely wrong on your part.

gallivant_fellow:

It is tyrannical that they have to poop in the road.

gallivant_fellow:

If we are all North Americans, are we American-United Statians, then the Natives of Mexico are American-Mexicans, the French in Canada are American-Canadians and the Native American isn't correct because they aren't Mexicans or Canadians, but Native United Statians. Sounds good to me. What can I say?

It is tyrannical that they have to poop in the road.Hello again, Martha:

Let me take back what I said. You're NOT a bigot. You're just plain old dumb, if you believe the crap you're putting out.

excon

gallivant_fellow:

If we are all North Americans, are we American-United Statians, then the Natives of Mexico are American-Mexicans, the French in Canada are American-Canadians and the Native American isn't correct because they aren't Mexicans or Canadians, but Native United Statians. Sounds good to me. What can I say?
Wow... Wow. I have seen the term 'Statian' but think it's ridiculous. 'US citizen' seems a little more practical. The term Native American refers to any group of indigenous peoples in the continents of North and South America. Native Americans is correct. Canada has a huge Native American population. South America is packed with Native Americans. Some are still living the same way they always have.

gallivant_fellow:

It is tyrannical that they have to poop in the road.
I don't think you know what tyrannical means. Even if someone was forcing Mexican drivers to poop on the road, to use the word tyrannical to describe the abuser of power is to devalue the word.

gallivant_fellow:

Actually we in the United States ARE Americans and North Americans. The people of Mexico and Canada are only North Americans, NOT Americans. They are of the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT, while we are of America, the country. Got that?

gallivant_fellow:

South Americans are South Americans. North Americans are North Americans. Central Americans are Central Americans. Canadians are Canadians. Mexicans are Mexicans. Americans are Americans. Venezuelans are Americans. . Columbians are Americans. Kind of destroys the song America. What happened to from sea to shining sea? What's the matter with you? Where are you, in China? Are you Chinese?

nicespringgirl:

You sound spaced out and in favor of the NEW WORLD ORDER "haves" and "have nots" FREE TRADE society where the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION receive NO ECONOMIC VALUE from their work and no way to get out of it.

I am not for N.A.F.T.A. and C.A.F.T.A that benefit the people that own the economies, who want to set up FREE TRADE as a trope for the whole NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT -- their FREE TRADE excludes the MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION of the whole continent.

FREE TRADE IS NOT FREE TRADE FOR ALL.

FREE TRADE IS ONLY FREE FOR THE "UPPER" MINORITY POPULATION AND DESECRATES THE MAJORITY POPULATIONS.

nicespringgirl:

China is fine and looking out after their economy. I have nothing against Chinese. I wish I could speak Chinese. With the way the BUSH administration is spending borrowed money, $59 TRILLION, like drunken sailors, China will own the United States of America. Apparently, Ruport Murdoch thinks China is the up and coming world power, he has moved to China, but I am not wealthy like old Ruport, I have to remain in the USA and go down with the RIGHT WING AMERICAN ARISTOCRACY'S deindustrialized and financialized economy. I don't have a choice.

gallivant_fellow:

Actually we in the United States ARE Americans and North Americans. The people of Mexico and Canada are only North Americans, NOT Americans. They are of the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT, while we are of America, the country. Got that?
Sorry to abuse your illusions, but I did not say that U.S. citizens are not American. Who are you arguing with? I know that everyone in North and South America is either North or South American and U.S. citizens are North American. When speaking about the Americas you should refer to our country's name as the US, or USA to avoid confusion.

I am not Chinese, I am a 'U.S. Statian' as you would call it, so don't even try to go after my country or race like you have previously done to the Mexicans when trying to convince everyone that their bathroom habits are an act of tyranny.

Also, You're getting way to extreme with all this New World Order stuff. I think the only spaced out person involved in this question is you, so please don't harass the users.

OOOOOOOO! Shut down.

gallivant_fellow:

The use of CAFTA and NAFTA in pursuit of SO CALLED FREE TRADE is not free trade at all, but the use of free trade as a trope that signifies to those who own the economy that they are free to benefit from obscene profit against the benefit of the majority population, and the majority population are free to participate without benefit, or to starve. A trope, FREE TRADE, that signifies to the aristocratic class and culture that they are free to get all of the benefit and that the common population is free to get NONE of the benefit while doing all of the work is not free trade at all; it is only free trade as a hollow meaningless trope, an old AMERICAN TRADITION that has been in use since before the American Revolutionary War.

In FREE TRADE, if the common population cannot use their communal resources as a means of production and distribution, the common population cannot benefit from FREE TRADE. The aristocratic class and culture have the means of production and distribution to participate in SO CALLED FREE TRADE, not the common population. The aristocratic class will therefore receive the benefit of markets in a SO CALLED FREE TRADE ECONOMY, rather than the common population. NOTHING IS FREE, most of all SO CALLED FREE TRADE AS A TROPE.

nicespringgirl:

China is fine and looking out after their economy. I have nothing against Chinese. I wish I could speak Chinese. With the way the BUSH administration is spending borrowed money, $59 TRILLION, like drunken sailors, China will own the United States of America. Apparently, Ruport Murdoch thinks China is the up and coming world power, he has moved to China, but I am not wealthy like old Ruport, I have to remain in the USA and go down with the RIGHT WING AMERICAN ARISTOCRACY'S deindustrialized and financialized economy. I don't have a choice.
You know Chinese isn't a language right? I think you mean Mandarin. USA is buying businesses and investing in China too. You don't need to run away. You're acting like the US is coming to an end or something. I think you are a little too dramatic, especially with that new world order stuff you were saying before.

gallivant_fellow:

The use of CAFTA and NAFTA in pursuit of SO CALLED FREE TRADE is not free trade at all, but the use of free trade as a trope that signifies to those who own the economy that they are free to benefit from obscene profit against the benefit of the majority population, and the majority population are free to participate without benefit, or to starve. A trope, FREE TRADE, that signifies to the aristocratic class and culture that they are free to get all of the benefit and that the common population is free to get NONE of the benefit while doing all of the work is not free trade at all; it is only free trade as a hollow meaningless trope, an old AMERICAN TRADITION that has been in use since before the American Revolutionary War.

In FREE TRADE, if the common population cannot use their communal resources as a means of production and distribution, the common population cannot benefit from FREE TRADE. The aristocratic class and culture have the means of production and distribution to participate in SO CALLED FREE TRADE, not the common population. The aristocratic class will therefore receive the benefit of markets in a SO CALLED FREE TRADE ECONOMY, rather than the common population. NOTHING IS FREE, most of all SO CALLED FREE TRADE AS A TROPE.
Huh? Are you sure you're not talking to MarthaA?

gallivant_fellow:

No, I am not responding to Martha.

But I didn't state any facts about free trade, N.A.F.T.A. or C.A.F.T.A. Why is it directed at me?

nicespringgirl:

You sound spaced out and in favor of the NEW WORLD ORDER "haves" and "have nots" FREE TRADE society where the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION receive NO ECONOMIC VALUE from their work and no way to get out of it.

I am not for N.A.F.T.A. and C.A.F.T.A that benefit the people that own the economies, who want to set up FREE TRADE as a trope for the whole NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT -- their FREE TRADE excludes the MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION of the whole continent.

FREE TRADE IS NOT FREE TRADE FOR ALL.

FREE TRADE IS ONLY FREE FOR THE "UPPER" MINORITY POPULATION AND DESECRATES THE MAJORITY POPULATIONS.
I think he was talking about that ^

Ok I haven't posted in a while but when I seen this question I had to say something.

The first comment is:Supposedly, if we were united with Mexico and Canada, Mexicans could unload our imports from China faster and incredibly cheaper. Also, We could ship things around North America faster and cheaper

Ok if Canada, Mexico and the USA came together every person would be a citizen. With means that they are entitled to wage laws like we are. So it wouldn't be any cheaper.

Second-our combined currency would destroy the Euro.

I don't think that would happen. The currency of a country is only worth as much gold as that's country's government can back it up with.

As for the boarders being left alone. That's because there are so many illegal immigrant rights activist. They protest that they should get the same rights as US citizens and that they have just as much right as live here as well. Our political leader are to scared to be voted out of office, so they promise to close the boarder but probably never will.

gallivant_fellow:

No, you said the United States is not America. I prefer America. I live in the United States of America. No other country has America in its name other than the United States of America, the fact that our states are united, doesn't make our country not be AMERICA.

Forget it, you do your thing and I will do mine. You prefer USA, fine, be a United Statian, whatever.

The fact that it is reported that Mexicans use the toilet on the ground from their trucks is not a bad bathroom habit, how can you be ignorant enough to say something like that?

You do not appear be old enough or educated enough to discuss anything of value. What are you doing on a political blog?

gallivant_fellow:

I responded to the implication of the post.

gallivant_fellow:

No, you said the United States is not America. I prefer America. I live in the United States of America. No other country has America in its name other than the United States of America, the fact that our states are united, doesn't make our country not be AMERICA.

Forget it, you do your thing and I will do mine. You prefer USA, fine, be a United Statian, whatever.

The fact that it is reported that Mexicans use the toilet on the ground from their trucks is not a bad bathroom habit, how can you be ignorant enough to say something like that?.

You do not appear be old enough or educated enough to discuss anything of value. What are you doing on a political blog?
I did NOT say the United States is not America. You LIE! I was saying that America describes more than Just the US. I also didn't say that their bathroom habits are not bad. Of course it's bad, I was saying you should not have used the word 'tyranny' to describe it. I even recommended the word gross to describe it. You are calling me ignorant about something that was never said. Do not insult my intelligence over the way you interpreted my comments.

Martha:

All of your arguments in the post are things that weren't even said and you made up. I saw your 9/11 conspiracy stuff too, you are one crazy lady:eek: ! Stop your rampage!!

nilbog:

Nothing I have said was made up. You are naïve to think that. Hopefully I can say something that hasn't already been said about your subject, it not -- what's the point of discussion?

Thomas, I was talking about Martha. Did you see the 'Martha:' I'm all right with you buddy. I just don't like that lady who is harassing a young boy with an ammunition of words he didn't say. It wasn't about you.:)

This is just a thought but it looks like martha and thomas are the same person. They keep alternating going online and offline. After martha posts then she goes offline and thomas comes online and posts. See what I mean?

? What do you mean ? You think they are the same?:confused:

? What do you mean ? You think they are the same?:confused:

Yes same person.

OH! Why? I think she is crazy:eek:

The 12:24AM post to nilbog, that shows to be a ThomasG post, is not a ThomasG post, but a MarthaA post. It is strange that it came up under ThomasG. We are both posting from the same machine and somehow or other it didn't sign him out.

I tried to delete it when I saw it was under ThomasG, but it didn't work.

So, I will put it here:

nilbog:

Nothing I have said was made up. You are naïve to think that. Hopefully I can say something that hasn't already been said about your subject, if not -- what's the point of discussion?

Once again Martha, I mean Thomas, lies, lies, lies. You are fooling nobody!

nilbog:

Trying to discredit a person because you have no knowledge of what is being talked about, doesn't make a person crazy, it only make you not know what is being talked about.

nicespringgirl:

Sure, we share the same computer.

otto186:

Whenever Thomas posts, he posts from his email, and whenever I post, I post from my email, at least we try. Thomas addressed gallivant_fellow because he originated the thread, not me. Thomas feels that if you originate the thread you probably know something about it, or want to know something about it, Thomas definitely wasn't trying to talk to me.

Weird you know exactly what Thomas thinks, he has only posted on here, he goes offline when you come on.

gallivant_fellow:

You need to do some thinking about government tyranny when it comes to the Mexicans, because their misery is government tyranny -- nothing else.

Reading their posts, chekcing their IP address, they do appear to be the same person.